and without an extensive inner thought life, if that is the case, were humans better or worse off?




15 Comments

Leave a response

You must be to post a response.

  1. griz 11 months ago

    There’s the idea that one cannot miss that which they’ve never known. And that it’s very hard to understand a world without something you’ve always had. We can think we do, but we probably don’t.

    But most people “think”, that we think in words. We actually think in primitive motivations to do with benefit vs loss, make sense of these through narratives, and only then is language applied. (From my lectures on developmental psychology).
    For example, every terrestrial-based animal sees exactly the same thing when they see a cliff: an un-affordable loss. We attach the narrative of “a falling-off-place”, that would be the same regardless of language (or the lack thereof?). And only then, does the identificatory language of “cliff” come into play.

    As for better or worse off?
    There is very good indication that without language transmitting knowledge into future generations would have been impossible (with pictographs being a form of graphic language). And without this we would not have civilization and an awareness of history.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 11 months ago

      @griz an excellent response. I’ll go with that. Are your courses that you are taking working towards a personal goal of yours?

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • griz 11 months ago

        @Scarlett
        Not just yet.
        It was more like something that just “shone forth” as an aspect of life I had very little formal understanding on. It would be accurate to say it “seized me”.

        I still find the hardest part of it distinguishing between the two questions:
        “What story is this information trying to tell” vs “How can this information support stories I already think I know”.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  2. immortal_pirate 11 months ago

    The earliest sentient humanoids thought process was “an in the moment thought process”.
    It was the four “F’s”…
    FOOD
    FUCKING
    FAMILY
    FIRE
    Mankind was a hunter/gatherer community. Males did the hunting and gathering. Females cared for the offspring and did much of the work to keep the community unit together. Not much has really changed since the beginning of mankind.
    Food was probably number one on their mind.(they thought with their stomachs)
    Fucking, procreation was and always has been on the minds of males of the species.
    Family…a direct result of the immediate former subject, and it became a focal point of the community unit.
    Fire…the element has always been a point of fascination to man. It provides warmth, light, and the ability to cook meat, and protection from predatory creatures of the wild such as lions, and tigers, and bears…oh my!
    Eventually man developed a spoken language to describe all of the things that effected his existence and his inter-action with the world as he knew it. A true written language came much later.
    We could say that mankind was better off in his innocents, but his day to day existence was a struggle. Each subsequent generation would seem to be better off than it’s predecessor…but is it really? Can you make fire using your smart phone? Can you catch wild game with your Game Boy?
    In many respects, your earliest predecessors had an advantage over you, and were far better off than you would ever be.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 11 months ago

      @immortal_pirate I certainly would think they were better off without all of the neurosis that we have today…

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • griz 11 months ago

        @Scarlett
        My thought is that the rise in neuroses is an indication we are not “growing up” and taking full adult responsibility for our existential reality.

        And this is backed by psychological study and not intended to be contentious, but women as a group are higher in trait neurosity (sensitivity to negative emotion) than men as a group: and this is a necessary trait for the effective protection and provisioning of infants who cannot articulate their needs, only express their feelings. And more women wanting to “do it all”, sets them up as a group to be more sensitive to what they already tend to be more sensitive to.

        And then add in the emotional side-effects of the pill. One cannot regularly dose themselves on hormones (steroids) without emotional side-effect.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

    • griz 11 months ago

      @immortal_pirate
      A good run-down of things.
      I agree that procreation was a paramount and overt competitive urge with males. But the females were on the sidelines watching the men butt heads with a less-overt (but still pervasive) drive to select the best genes for potential offspring — and for competent men who could/would support and stand by them while they were vulnerable. Women were/are (until late?) the very Vanguards of the Human genome. They are the “Mother Nature” that selects the best and lets the rest go extinct.

      An interesting aspect of fire, is that in a way it pre-digested (broke down) food so our ancestors didn’t need the huge guts the other primates did to derive sufficient nourishment. Our large cognitive brains are VERY metabolically expensive to maintain. Fire was the catalyst that allowed our ancestors to trade off big guts, for big brains.

      I understand the sentiment that we were better off in our innocence: the same way we could say that children are better off without all of the weight and concerns that come with a more sophisticated (and truthful?) adult perception of self-aware existence.
      But children would not have advanced intelligence, medical science, innovation, the arts, social understanding etc as adults have. Responsibility for this is a heavy burden. And it’s always easier in the short run to abdicate responsibility than to carry it.

      But we were arguably created/evolved to carry just such a burden and to be at our best when we do.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

  3. ladybarbara 11 months ago

    I agree with Immortal Pirate’s answer.

    From the female point of view, the four F’s were important, but they saw the strength of the male and his need to “own” things. They saw in him protection and providing. It was important to keep him interested in keeping yourself and your offspring protected and provided for. “Family” became a real issue. Then the clan and tribe. It became important to communicate in order to work as a unit. Each person benefits from co-operating with others.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • ladybarbara 11 months ago

      @ladybarbara Still, there is a short in the communication between men and women. Men think of the “now” and women think of the future. At the market, I shop for the week and think in terms of a week’s worth of meal ingredients. However, Immortal Pirate just thinks for “today” —- right now. He thinks we will run and get something for right now and rush through the check-out register with an arm full of immediate needs. He does not understand my gathering a grocery basket full of food.

      There is a communication gap. Like the man who brought home 6 gallons of milk from the store. When asked why, he said, ” You told me to get a gallon of milk and see if they have any bananas. If they have bananas, you wanted 6. — well, they had bananas.”

      Men think in the “here” and “now”. I am sure that it was that way even before man could vocalize. They went hunting and brought home an animal to be cooked for the next meal. A fire was to heat and cook with right now. I don’t think that modern man has been able to rid himself of that immediate-need thought process. There is a short in the communication between men and women.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 11 months ago

      @ladybarbara in certain ways, I still feel that today. I would rather be a part of something than go it alone.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • ladybarbara 11 months ago

        @Scarlett Me too. But, when I was alone I could eat tacos everyday and did not have anyone to say I couldn’t.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  4. five2one 11 months ago

    I believe language is intrinsic to who and what we are.

    Language does evolve, but I believe that evolution is limited. I do not believe this is our ultimate form, but a form which is intrinsically limited and vulnerable. Like worms and butterflies.

    Today, because of a wealth of knowledge and capabilities to express that knowledge in elaborate, metaphoric framework, we can say our language is much more advanced then it was even a hundred years ago. However, such advancement is useless unless that intrinsic true self is able to parse it. Otherwise, it is just eat, shit, sleep, reproduce, matters of the flesh, the outer self, not the inner self.

    Those who do not have an beautiful inner self, do not have a beautiful inner life, regardless of the time period.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      Scarlett 11 months ago

      @five2one it is possible that some of the earliest people honed their creativity or felt their connectivity to nature allowing the beautiful inner self you speak of

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • five2one 11 months ago

        @Scarlett I definitely think so… not saying otherwise. I do not think inner beauty is some sort of modern invention, just I do see a future where inner beauty will be what people see…

        Primitive cultures are much easier to not be contaminated.

        Probably why I stay on my island/mountains, most of the time. :P

        :-)

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  5. immortal_pirate 11 months ago

    The rise of man…LOL

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

©2019 Soul Sequel | All Rights Reserved

 
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account